New Tiger Woods Launch Monitor

[pdxhak]

1 hour ago, HoganHO said:

Plugged in to charge this morning and there was a Firmware update.

 

1.13(34)

 

Nice! Please let us know if the update corrects any of the known issues that have been discussed. 

 

I have exchanged a couple of emails with Fullswing and about ready to pull the trigger 🙂

[marmot8]

6 hours ago, HoganHO said:

Plugged in to charge this morning and there was a Firmware update.

 

1.13(34)

Thanks for the heads up.  Just downloaded it, too.

[HoganHO]

Had a nice range session yesterday with the FSK. I went in to the app and added different club names such as 50 degree WaistHigh, 54 degree ShoulderHigh and so on. Was perfect for doing some wedge gapping for different length swings and clubs.

 

Also warmed up with it on Friday before a round. It was relatively cold (50 degrees) and a little foggy. Found that I wasn’t hitting my 9 iron (and other clubs) nearly as long as usual (or should I say as long as I think I carry them!) and this ended up saving me strokes for sure. This is powerful information.

 

I understand that the Mevo/Mevo+/Rapsodo and on an on give similar data, but the ease of setup, reliability, and accuracy make this a clear winner for me right now.

 

If anyone knows what the Firmware upgrade is addressing, post it.

[RmoorePE]

FSK does not have indoor mode yet, but we used it against a net this weekend and the results felt right (had about 20 feet of space from monitor to net). My daughter and I had a distance control contest with it and we both felt like we were hitting carries that matched the machine. We did 3 shots to 100 yards each and 3 shots to 150 each, add up the total amount off, to determine the winner.

 

We did some other testing. She has a much better swing than me and so I asked her to try and hit a snap hook, or a cut and the machine produced results that matched these shot shapes.

 

It picked up all of my thin shots, but it did miss the shank that hit our garage fridge. I actually feel better about this thing being eventually ready for sim use, I hope I'm right! 

[HoganHO]

Anyone have any issues with the FSK not picking up video on every shot? I don't use the video for anything, but just noticed from my session yesterday that it missed a bunch (video, not data)

[marmot8]

2 hours ago, RmoorePE said:

FSK does not have indoor mode yet, but we used it against a net this weekend and the results felt right (had about 20 feet of space from monitor to net). My daughter and I had a distance control contest with it and we both felt like we were hitting carries that matched the machine. We did 3 shots to 100 yards each and 3 shots to 150 each, add up the total amount off, to determine the winner.

 

We did some other testing. She has a much better swing than me and so I asked her to try and hit a snap hook, or a cut and the machine produced results that matched these shot shapes.

 

It picked up all of my thin shots, but it did miss the shank that hit our garage fridge. I actually feel better about this thing being eventually ready for sim use, I hope I'm right! 

I don’t know that I previously mentioned this, but that was my result too.  My 8 iron was consistently in the 160-165 range depending on how I hit, to the point that I was guessing the distance and getting within a yard.  Indoor mode should be promising ( though I won’t really use it).

[gibbiesmalls]

On 12/30/2021 at 7:30 PM, comoco said:

Right. But it's too far off. Spin number like two times. That means mevo+ is a lot better. 

I tested an FSK today against my GC Quad and also against a TM4.

 

I don't have any hard data to share, but I can say that I quickly lost confidence in the FSK.  Though carry numbers were different, they were in the same general "ballpark".  Spin, launch angle etc were off significantly too frequently.  We're talking backspins of 3k when Quad or TM 4 read them as 2k, etc.  Short shots, mid irons, woods, driver - with just about every type of club or shot used, some data parameters were so far off so as to consider them completely unreliable.

 

This unit wasn't mine, so I can't say what firmware version it had, but just sharing my personal experience of comparing it against my GCQuad.  It was rather disappointing.

 

Just my anecdotal 2 cents.

 

 

 

[comoco]

24 minutes ago, gibbiesmalls said:

I tested an FSK today against my GC Quad and also against a TM4.

 

I don't have any hard data to share, but I can say that I quickly lost confidence in the FSK.  Though carry numbers were different, they were in the same general "ballpark".  Spin, launch angle etc were off significantly too frequently.  We're talking backspins of 3k when Quad or TM 4 read them as 2k, etc.  Short shots, mid irons, woods, driver - with just about every type of club or shot used, some data parameters were so far off so as to consider them completely unreliable.

 

This unit wasn't mine, so I can't say what firmware version it had, but just sharing my personal experience of comparing it against my GCQuad.  It was rather disappointing.

 

Just my anecdotal 2 cents.

 

 

 

Pretty bad news and definitely hurt my soul. Thanks for sharing.

[gibbiesmalls]

3 minutes ago, comoco said:

Pretty bad news and definitely hurt my soul. Thanks for sharing.

And one last thing to add, my comparison was done outside off grass.

[HoganHO]

Would be helpful if you could provide some more detailed information about your test session. I don’t think the expectation from anyone should be that they’re getting a TM4 or GC quad for 4k. But it should provide some good/great, actionable data—so far this is definitely my experience.
 

 

what did you think of the club data like path, face angle etc? 
 

 

 

 

[DS12312]

Does the TM4 radar impact the FSK at all?  I wonder if it was just GCQuad vs FSK I'd the numbers would be different

[RmoorePE]

My only other testing was as stated earlier outdoors with a range finder. Simply standing on the place the ball landed and shooting back to the FSK. That gave pretty good results. Well within a 12 handicappers margin of expertise.

 

Spin rates all seemed in acceptable ranges (based on typical guidelines), but I have never paid attention to my spin rates before. Other than wanting my driver spin rate around 2k optimally, which I would get on occasion with FSK. However, at a handicap golfer level does the data give you an indication of what happened with your swing?  I would definitely say that is true, the question is, is it better than other devices at the $4k range? Or the same as devices in the $2500 range?

 

I know that I could say "I'm going to spin this one" with a wedge and the results bear out. I also know I could slap a nasty slice with my driver and the machine results were a high spin rate and 40 yards right. I don't know how you would ever physically test the accuracy of spin rate. Testing against a high end monitor is probably best way.

 

Next time I go out I am going to stand in the range and have my daughter aim at me, we will set up the FSK to that point. Then measure how far Right or Left the machine predicts the shot lands in comparison to actual landing point, will be interesting.

[comoco]

9 hours ago, RmoorePE said:

My only other testing was as stated earlier outdoors with a range finder. Simply standing on the place the ball landed and shooting back to the FSK. That gave pretty good results. Well within a 12 handicappers margin of expertise.

 

Spin rates all seemed in acceptable ranges (based on typical guidelines), but I have never paid attention to my spin rates before. Other than wanting my driver spin rate around 2k optimally, which I would get on occasion with FSK. However, at a handicap golfer level does the data give you an indication of what happened with your swing?  I would definitely say that is true, the question is, is it better than other devices at the $4k range? Or the same as devices in the $2500 range?

 

I know that I could say "I'm going to spin this one" with a wedge and the results bear out. I also know I could slap a nasty slice with my driver and the machine results were a high spin rate and 40 yards right. I don't know how you would ever physically test the accuracy of spin rate. Testing against a high end monitor is probably best way.

 

Next time I go out I am going to stand in the range and have my daughter aim at me, we will set up the FSK to that point. Then measure how far Right or Left the machine predicts the shot lands in comparison to actual landing point, will be interesting.

Thanks for sharing. May you offer your opinion on path vs face the KIT producing? Is it representing well relative to actual ball flight?

 

For example, degree of club face less than one of swing path which both are opening relative to target, and actual ball flight is draw. 

[hammersia]

On 1/11/2022 at 3:22 AM, gibbiesmalls said:

I tested an FSK today against my GC Quad and also against a TM4.

 

I don't have any hard data to share, but I can say that I quickly lost confidence in the FSK.  Though carry numbers were different, they were in the same general "ballpark".  Spin, launch angle etc were off significantly too frequently.  We're talking backspins of 3k when Quad or TM 4 read them as 2k, etc.  Short shots, mid irons, woods, driver - with just about every type of club or shot used, some data parameters were so far off so as to consider them completely unreliable.

 

This unit wasn't mine, so I can't say what firmware version it had, but just sharing my personal experience of comparing it against my GCQuad.  It was rather disappointing.

 

Just my anecdotal 2 cents.

 

 

 

Thanks for the effort to do the test, however interference between the TM and FSK units is the most likely explanation. Really only a Quad / FSK benchmarking is worthwhile, still not on youtube.... Jury is out. 

[gibbiesmalls]

1 hour ago, hammersia said:

Thanks for the effort to do the test, however interference between the TM and FSK units is the most likely explanation. Really only a Quad / FSK benchmarking is worthwhile, still not on youtube.... Jury is out. 

Huh?

 

You must have missed where I said I compared it to GCquad.  But ok. 

 

 

[hammersia]

1 minute ago, gibbiesmalls said:

Huh?

 

You must have missed where I said I compared it to GCquad.  But ok. 

 

 

No no.

 

As in compare the FSK to the GC Quad ONLY.

 

The TM you had will have been positioned in a similar position to the FSK. What I'm saying, and again I thank you for doing the test, is it would be fantastic if you could do the test again WITHOUT the TM present.

 

Because two radars will most likely interfere with each other and screw up the test. 

[gibbiesmalls]

24 minutes ago, hammersia said:

No no.

 

As in compare the FSK to the GC Quad ONLY.

 

The TM you had will have been positioned in a similar position to the FSK. What I'm saying, and again I thank you for doing the test, is it would be fantastic if you could do the test again WITHOUT the TM present.

 

Because two radars will most likely interfere with each other and screw up the test. 

 

That's how they were tested. And even those times when all 3 were on, the results were identical (iow, FSK spin rates and launch angles were all too frequently significantly off so as to make them completely unreliable). 

 

I didn't set out to test the FSK, so I realize this is just more anecdotal evidence, but since it was available, I decided to test it against the quad since I could easily look at the LCD displays on both to compare after each shot.

 

Quad vs FSK = same discrepancies

TM4 vs FSK = same discrepancies

All 3 on = same discrepancies (TM4 and GCQ were SPOT ON)

 

I'm not convinced the FSK and TM4 interfere with each other anyway, as the "behavior" (and discrepancies in numbers) of the FSK unit was identical as when the TM4 wasn't on.

 

I will say, the FSK didn't have any missed shots so in that regard, it appears to be very reliable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dax279]

It is possible that the TM4 could cause interference; however, I suspect the radar frequencies between the units are likely different and thus the reason why the testing did not show interference. 

[hammersia]

24 minutes ago, gibbiesmalls said:

 

That's how they were tested. And even those times when all 3 were on, the results were identical (iow, FSK spin rates and launch angles were all too frequently significantly off so as to make them completely unreliable). 

 

I didn't set out to test the FSK, so I realize this is just more anecdotal evidence, but since it was available, I decided to test it against the quad since I could easily look at the LCD displays on both to compare after each shot.

 

Quad vs FSK = same discrepancies

TM4 vs FSK = same discrepancies

All 3 on = same discrepancies (TM4 and GCQ were SPOT ON)

 

I'm not convinced the FSK and TM4 interfere with each other anyway, as the "behavior" (and discrepancies in numbers) of the FSK unit was identical as when the TM4 wasn't on.

 

I will say, the FSK didn't have any missed shots so in that regard, it appears to be very reliable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's great info ok good to know cheers 

 

(Your previous post wasn't absolutely crystal clear on what testing you had done tbf, hence the questions).

[pdxhak]

I think we would need to know if this FSK had the updated firmware. Speaking of which, has anyone be able to test on the new firmware to confirm if any of the known issues were resolved?

[pnd4pnd]

I'm a beta tester on the FSK and currently on 1.14. The newer firmware improves the path and face results dramatically but still needs work. I talk with them on a regular basis and they are very focused on improving accuracy. I have compared results to a trackman (and will compare to a foresight today). So far the carry numbers are dead on, spin is very close, and as I said face and path still need some work. I'm very confident they will get the accuracy much better - firmware updates are coming regularly. For a 4K device, you won't be able to beat it. It's about as user friend as they come.

Edited January 12, 2022 by pnd4pnd

[RmoorePE]

14 hours ago, comoco said:

Thanks for sharing. May you offer your opinion on path vs face the KIT producing? Is it representing well relative to actual ball flight?

 

For example, degree of club face less than one of swing path which both are opening relative to target, and actual ball flight is draw. 

I can't comment to the accuracy in that regard, but I can report that if you hit a push draw and check the machine the face to path will align with the ball flight. I.e. the face to path will be some degree right. If you hit a pull cut, again your face to path angle (some degree left) will bear it out. 

[goudok]

4 hours ago, pnd4pnd said:

I'm a beta tester on the FSK and currently on 1.14. The newer firmware improves the path and face results dramatically but still needs work. I talk with them on a regular basis and they are very focused on improving accuracy. I have compared results to a trackman (and will compare to a foresight today). So far the carry numbers are dead on, spin is very close, and as I said face and path still need some work. I'm very confident they will get the accuracy much better - firmware updates are coming regularly. For a 4K device, you won't be able to beat it. It's about as user friend as they come.

Please keep us informed.  I am about to pull a trigger on one of these, but not sure if it's worth the extra 1000 over the mevo+ or is it just better going all in on the gc3.

I need path and spin to be within 90% accuracy, if those are off by more than that then this is totally useless for the price.

[pnd4pnd]

So just got back from the range where I spent an hour with my pro and a flightscope comparing numbers. First, carry distance was dead on and he was shocked how close the numbers were. Spin was very close, off some times but in general right in the ball park. Path (important to me) was in the right direction all of the time (meaning left or right) but sometimes was more than a few degrees off. As I mentioned earlier in my discussions with FS they know this has to be improved and they know what they need to do. Everything else made perfect sense and correlated to the flightscope. Please remember I'm using firmware 1.14 which most of you don't have (I think it will come out in a week or two). Bottom line, I am really happy with the device so far and really look forward to the improvements that are coming fast and furious.

Edited January 12, 2022 by pnd4pnd

[HoganHO]

22 hours ago, pnd4pnd said:

I'm a beta tester on the FSK and currently on 1.14. The newer firmware improves the path and face results dramatically but still needs work. I talk with them on a regular basis and they are very focused on improving accuracy. I have compared results to a trackman (and will compare to a foresight today). So far the carry numbers are dead on, spin is very close, and as I said face and path still need some work. I'm very confident they will get the accuracy much better - firmware updates are coming regularly. For a 4K device, you won't be able to beat it. It's about as user friend as they come.

This is great information. Please keep us posted as you find out more.

[Proline]

19 hours ago, goudok said:

Please keep us informed.  I am about to pull a trigger on one of these, but not sure if it's worth the extra 1000 over the mevo+ or is it just better going all in on the gc3.

I need path and spin to be within 90% accuracy, if those are off by more than that then this is totally useless for the price.

It will be very hard to beat the Mevo+ with the pro package all in at 3000.  For the additional 1000 you're getting on device display and what I would assume be at least a year of firmware updates to get accuracy where it needs to be.  Both devices use nearly identical technology (not on the same level as TM or X3).  I would put more trust in Flightscope with their years of radar experience and the added fusion tracking. 

[HoganHO]

1 hour ago, Proline said:

It will be very hard to beat the Mevo+ with the pro package all in at 3000.  For the additional 1000 you're getting on device display and what I would assume be at least a year of firmware updates to get accuracy where it needs to be.  Both devices use nearly identical technology (not on the same level as TM or X3).  I would put more trust in Flightscope with their years of radar experience and the added fusion tracking. 

I disagree with this, but correct me if I am wrong. Mevo+ does not provide any club data (i.e. face angle, path,). So, if you're looking for club data to work on your swing, you're not going to get that with Mevo+

 

Also, I understand that Full Swing has been in the launch monitor/simulator space for many years....

[DS12312]

Mevo+ with pro package gets the additional information...$3k ($2k base Mevo+, $1k pro package) vs. $4k (plus likely subscription) for FSK

 

Yes FSK has been in the LM space for many years, but their expertise has been with camera based systems indoors, radar is new for them.

Edited January 13, 2022 by DS12312

[HoganHO]

I see the pro package does have club data so I stand corrected there.  Does it require stickers on the club or the ball? 

 

The FSK has an optional subscription for $99 that allows you to store all your sessions and data.

[Dan13]

22 minutes ago, HoganHO said:

I see the pro package does have club data so I stand corrected there.  Does it require stickers on the club or the ball? 

 

The FSK has an optional subscription for $99 that allows you to store all your sessions and data.

Metallic stickers (or RCT ball) needed for indoor use. Nothing needed outdoors. Assuming FSK gets the initial issues ironed out the M+ w pro package should be a direct competitor at $1k less. Has it ever been confirmed that FSK is tracking the entire ball flight outdoors? Rumor is that M+ tracks about 80 yards of flight.